State,
C.B.I./S.P.E., New
Delhi Vs. Pal Singh
& ANR [2000] INSC 588 (28 November 2000)
R.P.Sethi,
K.T.Thomas
L.I.T.J
THOMAS, J.
Leave
granted. The order of the High Court now under challenge is one of granting
bail to some of the accused persons. On a perusal of the facts alleged against
the accused we thought, at the time of admission of the special leave, that
impugned order was susceptible to certain consequences and hence we suspended
the operation of the said order on 23.7.1999 and directed the respondents
accused to be put back in jail. But despite the efforts adopted by us to have
the trial of the case progressing and reaching its logical conclusion it is a
stark irony that the trial has not even begun yet. Neither the prosecution nor
the defence could make even a guess as to when the trial could possibly commence,
much less end. In such a situation of compounded uncertainty the respondents
who were arrested in connection with this case way back in August 1996, cannot
justifiably be detained in jail as under-trial prisoners, despite all the
ostensible serious features of the crime delineated by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI).
The
incidents which gave rise to this bail matter happened on 13.9.1992 when a
sitting MLA of the U.P. Vidhan Sabha (Mahendra Singh Bhatti) and another person
(Uday Prakash Arya) were gunned down by armed assailants in the sight of the
onlookers at a busy locality. In the same shoot-out certain other persons were
also injured, some very badly. But the local police could not achieve any
tangible progress in investigation and hence the CBI was entrusted with the
task.
The
CBI arrested the two respondents on 18.6.1996 (as per their version, but
respondents put a different date as for their arrest). One AK-47 rifle and one
SLR were recovered from the respondents. The ballistic expert, after testing
the rifles and the bullets recovered from the dead body, sent up a report that
the bullets were fired from the same rifles. The CBI completed the
investigation and laid the charge-sheet on 7.10.1996 alleging that seven named
persons (including the two respondents) and some others (whose identity is not
known yet) hatched a conspiracy to murder Mahendra Singh Bhatti on account of political
rivalry with one D.P. Yadav (another MLA of U.P.). Pursuant to the said
conspiracy the murders were committed by the respondents.
On
1.2.1999 a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the
respondents solely on the ground that recovery of the fire arms was made only 4
years after the murders. We suspended the operation of the said order mainly on
account of our thinking that bail in murder cases should not be granted merely
on the ground of delay in recovery of the weapons. However, when we were told
that the case could not be proceeded with even now, we cannot permit such a
hibernating uncertainty to be a sufficient ground for detaining a person as an
under-trial prisoner endlessly. The case remains where it reached 4 years ago,
but respondents are not in any manner responsible for the aforesaid torpid
situation. Among the remaining accused D.P. Yadav and Karan Yadav have not been
arrested even till the date of the impugned order, nor could the trial court
proceed with the trial as the case was not even committed to the sessions
court.
The
Superintendent of CBI informed this Court through an affidavit that the said
two accused (D.P. Yadav and Karan Yadav) could not be arrested because the Allahabad
High Court ordered stay of all further proceedings in the case when two writ
petitions were filed before that High Court in 1996. To ascertain the truth of
the situation this Court directed the Registrar of the High Court to report to
us regarding the stage of the said writ petitions. On 13.3.2000 the Registrar
of the Allahabad High Court reported to this Court that learned single judge of
the High Court heard arguments in the writ petitions on 5.2.1998, but judgment
was not yet pronounced.
On
31.3.2000 we gave expression to our distress that on account of the delay in
pronouncing judgment in the writ petitions after granting stay of further
proceedings, the accused who were in jail had to continue to languish during
pre-conviction period. However, the Registrar of the High Court later reported
to this Court that the single judge of the High Court had disposed of the writ
petitions subsequently. We then thought that the dusk was clear for the trial
to proceed. But then it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for CBI
himself that even now the case could not progress due to certain other odds. He
also admitted that the present respondents are not in any manner responsible
for such odds.
In the
light of the aforementioned circumstances any further detention of the
respondents as under-trial prisoners would be a travesty of justice to the
respondents.
We,
therefore, dismiss this appeal by not interfering with that part of the
impugned order allowing the respondents to be released on bail. However, we
deem it necessary that Sessions Judge should impose conditions on the
respondents, before they are released, for ensuring that respondents would not
tamper with the evidence or intimidate or influence any of the witnesses for
prosecution and that the respondents would unfailingly attend the court on the
posting dates. We leave it to the Sessions Judge to impose such conditions as
he deems fit for the above purpose.
With
these observations we dispose of this appeal.
Back
